My Brick Wall: Three Simple Questions (Guest Blogger)

(A friend who has been following my Brick Walls and Picket Fences series sent this to me and asked if I would be interested in publishing it. I appreciated that he interacted with what I wrote. For reasons that seem reasonable to me, my friend desires to remain anonymous. For those who are interested, he DOES attend a Southern Baptist church!)

Dave Miller has been writing this past year about Brick Walls and Picket Fences that has caused me to think quite a bit about how I would define who I believe are outside a Brick Wall. I mean, the Picket Fences is to me simpler to explain than a Brick Wall and there are more examples of them. A church that hires a woman pastor would be on the other side of a picket fence. I can affirm them as Christians. I could work with them on a community food bank. I would have less cooperation with them than I would, say, a church that baptizes babies, but not by much. So I began to think, since it seems pretty easy for me to define where I would place the picket fences, I wanted to see if I could clearly define where I place my brick walls. I think the following 3 questions sum up how I would decide who is on the outside of the brick wall doctrinally.

Who is God?

For me to consider someone a Christian, I would want to know first of all who they think God is. Is God just some mysterious force a la George Lucas? Is He the “god of our many understandings” as Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson said? Do Muslims worship the same god as Christians or is the God Christians worship distinct from Allah, making Allah a false god?

For me to allow someone within the brick wall of Christian fellowship, they would have to acknowledge God as a Trinity—one God, three distinct but co-equal, co-substantial, and co-eternal beings who are all God. Further, they would have to recognize God as the One who spoke the world into existence out of nothingness, therefore being the Creator of the universe. That creation would also include the special creation of the first two human beings on the planet—Adam and Eve. I would also add that they must recognize His holiness—His total separation from sin. In addition, they would also have to recognize Him as a truth-telling God meaning that when He spoke He spoke truth. In other words, the Bible totally inerrant and inspired (the Chicago Statement does a good job of giving the singular definition of inerrancy, what it is, and what it is not). In short, someone who could not affirm verbal, plenary inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture including all miracles and the historicity of all events recorded is basically calling God a liar. They would be outside the brick wall.

Obviously, there is no way to adequately define a doctrine of God in a short blog post. However, those points above hit the major highlights of what I would consider non-negotiable items. If a person were to deny any one of those, I could not regard them as Christians or fellowship with them as such.

Who is Jesus?

The next point I would examine is this—who does this person say Jesus is? Again, space is limited so I will hit the high pints of what I consider paramount issues regarding Christology. A person would have to affirm that Christ is the 2nd person of the Trinity, and that He is just as much God as the 1st or 3rd persons of the Trinity are. In other words, He has always existed as God. However, when He came to earth, He became the Incarnate God—the God-man. They would have to affirm His virgin birth. They would also have to affirm His literal, physical resurrection. They would have to acknowledge the miracles He performed as well. They would have to affirm that His death on the cross paid the price for sins and it is only by a person consciously trusting in Him and repenting of those sins that they can be saved. I would also consider it foundational that they acknowledge His ascension to the right hand of God the Father in heaven. In short, they would have to acknowledge Him as being Who He said He was, doing what He said He did, and going where He said He was going.

What is the Gospel?

Finally, because the gospel has been redefined by heretics who actually deny the gospel taught in the Bible (a la Rob Bell, those who preach a “social gospel”, etc), I would have to ask what that person believes the gospel is. For me to understand a person to be preaching the gospel that the apostles preached, they would have to recognize the complete holiness and perfection of God. Further, they would have to recognize mankind as sinful to the core and incapable of doing anything to justify themselves before a holy God. Mankind, then, stands before God justly condemned for their sins. God, out of His great love, chose to send Christ to die on the cross as the atoning sacrifice for sin, bearing God’s wrath on the cross. Therefore, any person who repents of their sin and trusts Christ to save them will be saved. They must consciously trust Christ—hence the urgency for those of us who believe to be about the task of proclaiming the gospel because people who worship other faiths (Muslim, Hindu, etc) are lost and bound for hell outside of a conscious faith in Christ Jesus in this lifetime. In other words, inclusivism is something that Paul referred to in Galatians as “another gospel” and those who preach it are accursed.

Well, there it is—quite short, simple, and to the point. There is room for someone to be a paedobaptist or a credobaptist, charismatic or cessationist, young earth and old earth, Calvinist or non-Calvinist. Now, I personally could not go church planting with a paedobaptist, but I can affirm them as Christians.

We all have to draw the line somewhere. Dave has helped me think about where to draw mine. What about you?

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Those are definitely the questions. And I have no problems with the answers at all.

August 17, 2011 1:25 pm

Bill Mac

I think even most inerrantists would not say that non-inerrantists are lost (in the absence of other proofs, such as the denial of the resurrection, etc). The idea that non-inerrantists believe that God is a liar is very poor logic. Even Dave, when posting as Joe, admitted (grudgingly I think) that inerrancy was not a salvific doctrine. I don’t think CS Lewis would be considered an inerrantist by the modern evangelical use of the term, and to suggest that he wasn’t a Christian would be beyond the pale.

There is a subtle, but important point that needs to be maintained here. We are talking about what DOCTRINES are Christian, not what people are Christian. For instance, I believe that Catholicism teaches a false view of salvation. But I’ve known many Catholics I thought were genuinely saved.

When I do doctrinal triage, I am trying to triage doctrines, not people.

So, Bill, I would say that inerrancy is a crucial doctrine. But I know many people who are squeamish about the doctrine who are also genuinely saved.

Through God’s grace, many people find salvation in spite of numbers of false ideas.

August 17, 2011 1:36 pm

Bill Mac

That’s all I’m saying, but that is what the author did. The author said he/she would not consider a non-inerrantist as a Christian. It is possible that non-inerrancy is a grave error, but it is by no means a salvific error.

I think we must also keep in mind that despite attempts to force people into a false dichotomy, many people refuse to play the “one of two camps” game. Non-inerrantists are not necessarily errantists. Some simply (myself included) don’t think inerrant is the proper term for what the bible is.

No, you’re right, I believe that inerrancy is not salvific. But I have yet to meet a non-inerrantist who didn’t eqivicate on other essential doctrines. An non-inerrantist who holds to the essentials of the gospel is like an in tune baritone saxophonist or Santa Clause–they’re just fairy tales.

August 17, 2011 1:44 pm

Jim G.

I have a couple of questions on this article. The guest writer wrote:

“In short, someone who could not affirm verbal, plenary inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture including all miracles and THE HISTORICITY OF ALL EVENTS recorded is basically calling God a liar.” (emphasis mine)

and then

“There is room for someone to be a paedobaptist or a credobaptist, charismatic or cessationist, YOUNG EARTH AND OLD EARTH, Calvinist or non-Calvinist.” (again emphasis mine)

Doesn’t the historicity of all events include Genesis 1 and eliminate old-earthers? Maybe this could have been more carefully worded.

Second, doesn’t the emphasis on “paying the price” for sins necessitate penal substitution as a brick wall doctrine? Admittedly, the article is broken down into three parts, but by my count there are 9 brick wall doctrines here (the Trinity, the special creation of Adam/Eve, attribute of holiness, biblical inerrancy, humanity/deity of Christ, the events of Christ’s life, penal substitution, conscious trust for salvation, and total human depravity). I’m not disputing these (well, 2 of them are a little shaky and things I don’t think belong on the brick wall), but we have more brick wall stuff here than at first glance.

I wondered the same thing about old earth/young earth too when I read it. Could the case be made the old earthers do hold to the historicity of Genesis 1 even though they interpret “days” as “ages”? (scratching my head)

August 17, 2011 1:49 pm

Bill Mac

And this is the problem with inerrancy: To many, inerrancy means not that the bible is inerrant but that their interpretation of the bible is inerrant.

August 17, 2011 1:55 pm

Tom Parker

I’m just not willing to make a picket fence about women pastors.

I know it is easy for some to say that women can not be pastors but I am not in that group.

And I know that I am in the minority as far as being willing to state it here.

I know some will say the scriptures are clear on this but clear is in the eyes of the reader of the scriptures.

The author didn’t say they would make women preachers a brick wall issue. In fact, the article says A church that hires a woman pastor would be on the other side of a picket fence. I can affirm them as Christians.

There might be some, but I’m not aware of anyone who makes the women in ministry issue a brick wall – “you aren’t a Christian if you believe this” type of issue.

Genuine Christians disagree on that issue. I think it would be hard for them to be in the same church, perhaps even denomination, but I think we all realize that this is not a primary, or Brick Wall issue.

Part of the confusion, Tom, may be that I’ve been dealing with Picket Fence (divisions among Christians) issues and this post harkens back to the Brick Wall (doctrines that define biblical Christianity).

My friend is trying to figure out the essentials of Christianity, not the essentials of being Baptist or of one Christian system over another.

That’s only true if we confuse the SBC world with the Christian world. If I say, “that’s not really Southern Baptist” that is very different from saying “that’s not Christian.”

August 17, 2011 5:56 pm

John Wylie

Tom,

A paedobaptist church would also be disfellowshipped but that does not necessarily imply they’re not regarded as Christian. Just as in 1 Corinthians we are commanded to not fellowship with Christians who walk disorderly, this would be an example of the same principle. Disfellowshipping a church has no bearing at all on whether we consider it to be Christian.

August 17, 2011 6:59 pm

Tom Bryant

I guess I would have a 4th question: How do I/you interpret the Bible? That is, do I view it as authoritative and our only guide…? I can accept lots of different interpretations about eschatology and soteriology as long I know that someone believes that the Bible trumps all our opinions.

August 17, 2011 6:16 pm

Tom Parker

John Wylie:

You said:” A paedobaptist church would also be disfellowshipped but that does not necessarily imply they’re not regarded as Christian. ”

Can you name any SBC churches which have been disfellowshipped because of paedobaptism?

Can you name any SBC churches which have been disfellowshipped because of calling a woman pastor.

You also said:”Just as in 1 Corinthians we are commanded to not fellowship with Christians who walk disorderly, this would be an example of the same principle. ”

Sure looks to me like folks in the SBC selectively determine what is “walking disorderly.”

My association in Eastern Iowa refused fellowship with a church because they indicated they no longer required biblical baptism as a requirement for membership. I won’t name the church.

Any church that stops practicing immersion or that stops making it a requirement would be disfellowshiped.

Back in the 60s (pre CR – just for reference) my dad was concerned that our church might get disfellowshipped because we did not hold to alien immersion (rebaptizing people from non-SBC churches). Fortunately, we were the biggest church with the best CP gifts in the assoc, so I guess we were given a pass.

Having standards for fellowship in the SBC is nothing new.

August 17, 2011 7:28 pm

John Wylie

Tom,

I’m sorry I used the wrong term. Paedobaptism wouldn’t be a good example, but we did have a church in the local association here that was disfellowshipped for not requiring baptism by immersion for membership. Once again, there is no implication when a church is disfellowshipped that they are not Christian.

August 18, 2011 1:28 pm

Jim G.

Hi again,

Maybe this thread is going to be gone soon, but is anyone besides me just a little bothered by so many bricks in the wall in this post?

Biblical inerrancy as a brick wall? Penal substitution as a brick wall? (PS seems to be implied awfully strongly here, even if it is not explicitly stated.) Total human depravity as a brick wall? I ask these questions because if they are bricks in the wall, we have eliminated just about everyone who lived before the Reformation from the faith. We have eliminated nearly every non-Protestant alive today. I’m surprised there hasn’t been more discussion on this topic.